State Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need a Warrant to Enter Homes and Seize Evidence

The Wisconsin Supreme Court just dealt a death blow to the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect a citizen against unreasonable search and seizure. What’s more, the decision was made by a single, newly-appointed judge who was not even present when arguments were made in court.

In a 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court ruled that evidence seized in a person’s private home during a warrantless search can be used against the person under an expanded view of the “community caretaker” clause.

Police went to Charles Matalonis’ house after his brother was found bloodied at a nearby residence. Matalonis, admitting he fought with his brother, let the cops in, where they saw blood in the apartment and some cannabis. They wanted to look inside a locked room, and when Matalonis refused to unlock it, the cops broke in. There they found a cannabis growing setup, whereupon Matalonis was arrested and charged with manufacture of cannabis.

The Court of Appeals had previously ruled this to be an unreasonable search. However, in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, “Justice Annette Ziegler found that police were not investigating a crime but exercising their “community caretaker” function by checking to make sure no other injured people were in the house.”

This was challenged by three other Justices, who argued that “by the time officers entered the locked room, some 20 minutes or more after they had been in the house, there was little reason to suspect someone else was in the bedroom, but plenty of reason to suspect it might house marijuana.”

If the case had remained deadlocked at 3-3, then the Court of Appeals ruling that the evidence should be suppressed would have stood. But in a move that is without precedent in the U.S. or the Wisconsin Supreme Courts, newly-appointed Justice Rebecca Bradley cast the deciding vote without participating in oral arguments.

“No precedent appears to exist in the United States Supreme Court or in this court for a new justice who did not participate in oral argument to participate in the case without re-argument,” said Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Bradley was appointed by Governor Scott Walker after Justice Patrick Crooks passed away on Sept. 21, and is now running for election. Bradley had not participated in five earlier cases since her appointment, but decided to chime in on this one. She believed that listening to taped recordings of the arguments, instead of being there in person and involved, was sufficient for her to make the call.

So, an unelected judge appointed by a partisan politician cast a single vote, without being present during arguments, which effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment in that state. Now in Wisconsin, cops can enter a person’s home without a warrant, seize evidence and use it against the person.

The irony is that this attack on the Fourth Amendment is being carried out under the guise of cops being “community caretakers.” In other words, the state presumes that it is doing what’s best for the common good by violating the rights of the individual.

Help us spread this important information by clicking (Y) + Commenting + Sharing this story. Thank you.

Lawrence Neal

He LET them in. Never open the door for SA, never let the SA in, without a warrant. Once you let them in, you tacitly agree to let them search.

Raymond Ogden

Yeah. Normally I agree with TFT, but in this case, they’re being a little bit cagey with their language. Yes, the sentence “police can enter your home without a warrant” is technically accurate, but I feel like the clause “with the owner’s permission” was intentionally left out to sensationalize the story and give the less studious reader the impression that a government takeover is currently in progress.

Tom Butler

No it wasn’t. If you read the whole article, although he let them in to the house, he refused them entry into a locked room and they proceeded anyway. They entered that part of the house without a warrant with very specious reasoning and the court didn’t want to take that away.

D

I don’t think he’s referring to the case, but the conclusion the article draws based on the ruling.

Brad Schlag

We’ll assume you meant “suspicious reasoning”. They know you just beat up your brother, you let them in and in plain sight they see pot (another crime) and someone’s blood. Most people’s homes don’t have visible blood. They also see a locked door. They know you are capable of violence, of course they need to make sure you don’t have someone tied and gagged, unconscious or scared to call out behind the door. Not to mention these judges heard the whole case and specifics not covered in this article.

Rob Olson

You seem to forget the rest of it. The homeowner can remove his/her permission at any time. The cops then need to leave and get a warrant. They can NOT continue to search the home.

Cody Hutton

Wrong. If officers have reasonable doubt that a crime is happening they can investigate all they want. For instance if a woman was in her home screaming bloody murder an officer can kick in a door to investigate.

Unless, you know, you want the woman being raped and murdered to wait for a warrant.

Rob Olson

Please show where in the 4th amendment it says that. I have read it and read it and all I can find is cops need a warrant.

Douglas Bartelt

Unless there is probable cause. Blood on the floor and weed visable is more than enough.

Rob Olson

Where in the 4th amendment does it say that? Here is a copy of the bill of rights. Show me.

ftb88

I assume the beat up brother ratted him out,so the cops new what they were looking for.

I do not look forward to the mounting death toll in the police state. if the citizens may take up arms and defend themselves upon the police and the courts that are usurping the Constitution state legislators are but men

I won’t even go to Miami for a free vacation because of the reputation of American police. I’ve seen some do illegal searches and kill dogs or shoot children in the process. If you can’t do your job right you should go for retraining not get more privileges.

FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

History and Scope of the Amendment

History.—Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the “writs of assistance.” But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience,1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. “Every man’s house is his castle” was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne’s Case, decided in 1603.2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne’s Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King’s agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King’s process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington,3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes’ polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself.4

1 Apparently the first statement of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures appeared in The Rights of the Colonists and a List of Infringements and Violations of Rights, 1772, in the drafting of which Samuel Adams took the lead. 1 B. SCHWARTZ, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 199, 205-06 (1971).

2 5 Coke’s Repts. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604). One of the most forceful expressions of the maxim was that of William Pitt in Parliament in 1763: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive “of all the comforts of society,” and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person’s papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature “contrary to the genius of the law of England.”5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a “great judgment,” “one of the landmarks of English liberty,” “one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,” and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.6

In the colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded the leading examples of the necessity for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. The writs once issued remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs, opposition was led by James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes because they conflicted with English constitutionalism.7 Otis lost and the writs were issued and utilized, but his arguments were much cited in the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to judicial review.

5 95 Eng. 817, 818.

6 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 626 (1886).

7 The arguments of Otis and others as well as much background material are contained in Quincy’s MASSACHUSETTS REPORTS, 1761-1772, App. I, pp. 395-540, and in 2 LEGAL PAPERS OF JOHN ADAMS 106-47 (Wroth & Zobel eds., 1965). See also Dickerson, Writs of Assistance as a Cause of the American Revolution, in THE ERA OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: STUDIES INSCRIBED TO EVARTS BOUTELL GREENE 40 (R. Morris, ed., 1939).

Goddamned motherfucking public education system. Does anybody know how to READ?. They already had that authority. If evidence of a crime is visible, they don’t need a warrant, and in this case, it was not only visible but they actually had permission to be there. The decision applies only to this and similar cases, not to the 4th amendment as a whole.

Definitely becoming more and more a police state there need`s to be action taken here because we know who the intended target`s are i never heard of an intruder breaking into your home to greet you, could this be a dress rehearsal for the real thing NWO Roundup ?

Evidence can not be seen if it`s your home and the doors are closed that`s like searching your car and there is no plan evidence in plain sight and without a search warrant you don`t have to by law to submit to a search if a crime has not been committed but than again the system can very well do what they please even murder of innocent people

First off, the gentleman in question let the police in and was in the middle of a domestic dispute. Second the police discovered blood and drugs in the residence the gentleman allowed the police to enter. Then the man doesn’t want to allow thrm to enter a certain room. It’s probable cause. If the guy was violent enough to draw blood and fight with his brother, who’s to say he didn’t hurt someone else? (They could be dead, gagged, or unconscious in that room) I don’t think the verdict will change.

Be that as it may, the article indicates that the ruling now in Wisconsin is that a LEO may enter a home without a warrant, search and seize any evidence of a crime, then arrest the people. That in itself is not right.

Fuck your stupid. Go back to your fucking rock you live under. The problem with america is this exact situation. The gov pulls rights and the majority you people are too down right dumb, like really fucking dumb. Its scary to think about..

The guy LET the police inside. It’s no longer against your 4th amendment right. Had the gentleman turned the police away he wouldn’t have had this problem.
The police can’t do anything without a warrant or if the victim is no longer on the premises. The guy criminalized himself by allowing the police in the residence. In the article it does say police found the blood and a smaller amount of drugs PRIOR to entering the room. Therefore those two things alone were probable cause to enter the locked room. Any observations made by police while in your home can be used against you. If you don’t want to criminalize yourself refuse entry. If he had refused entry they’d of had to get a search warrant.
Honestly the Community Caretaker Clause is no different than the implied powers that are given to congress.
The Cady v Dombrowski case in 1973 enacted this clause by the way so this is NOT a new thing.

Wazzy Wazzy, the sheep are indeed dumbed down to no end, and with the continual fluoriation, indoctrination and brainwashing it’s just going to continue. I see and hear them daily and wonder how in the fuk they can even walk and chew gum at the same time.

Yes the police were let into the house but denied access to that particular room. A person has the right to deny access to part or all of his home and police are required to obtain a warrant to search locked areas unless they believe a human life is in danger. Without satisfying that requirement or consent of the owner, the said search is invalid and inadmissible in court. What the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has done overrides the US
Constitution and will not stand up in Federal court. We as citizens of USA must stand against any infringement of our constitutional rights as government and courts seek to limit them.

You have to get the ignorant sheep to learn what the LEGAL definition of INCOME is first, then maybe they would grow some balls and tell the foreign entity revenue sucking parasites to fuk off. Until then the sheep will continue to keep paying those taxes to keep paying off that fraudulent debt and the other bogus taxes, thereby supporting the beast that keeps slinging the whip on them. It’s their fukin ignorance, and that ignorance induces their fears of the big bad “government”, or corporation which it really is.

Why are you guys pretending this ruling is valid? Any ruling contrary to the Constitution is null, void and worthless. Police still need a warrant and any attempts at breaking and entering should result is the immediate expulsion of the intruder

Why did this guy let them in anyway? NEVER let the cops into your home to search… or even just to talk. You open the door as YOU slide out and close it behind you. Do not give the cops the chance to even put a foot in the way of the door as it closes because they WILL … and then they will claim you attacked them with the door unless you let them in to search. Cops are the enemy – and fuck any of you cops reading this that may try to argue the point. Cops … are … the … enemy. Their job is you extort money out of you for the system. If they can’t figure out a way to extort money out of you for fines … their job is to find a way to lock you up so the state can benefit from your labor. Cops are the ENEMY… period.

Lls I think the government has forgotten the fact that if all of the citizens stood up as one they wouldn’t stand a chance. People need to speak up more and open there eyes. That’s why the world is the way it is now is because people chose to feed into the Bulls..t government propaganda rather than do some actual research themselves to realize the truth.

Still No One Stand Up And Free American People From This DemoCRAZY & Anti Constitutional The Regime Has Already Put American Without Any Basic Human Rights At All … Or Still Just Sit, Watch TV & Drink A Beer Can Like A Coward Sheep…

Since this violates the CONSTITUTION it is NULL and Void and carries no force of law. Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):
“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

James Worzalla

Tell that to the court of law and see how much it holds up… the facts are, these exceptions are made with the generality and verbiage of the constitution in mind. In this case the 4th amendment a person is protected against “unreasonable” search and seizures. what determines unreasonable? it has been determined though not completely thorough through a multitude of case laws. I’ll let you do the research

I know the law I practice it everyday and from my perspective this is nust another masked step torward communism. The state manipulates and twist just about every crime committed to mold it into as many charges as possible. The same applies with the laws. Every time they pass another law like this it just gives them another lop hole to make a defendants case easier for them to prosecute and sets the standards to ones rights weaker and weaker. Read case law folks. Look at the original intent of a crime then look at how prosecutors continue to manipulate jurers over the years to completely redefine an original intent of a crime so it lowers the standard to get a conviction and opens the door for every other prosecutor to get a conviction and continue to lower the standard till eventually they can turn something a defendant did into a conviction of something completely opposite of what they actually did. Here comes communism folks

Heidi

Death of the 4th Amendment? Not hardly. This exception to the warrant requirement is long established in case law. Further, oral argument is not required. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of jurisprudence and case law should write these articles.

Rob Olson

Maybe you need to learn the constitution

Travis LaBranche

I agree with Heidi. This article has left out many details of the actual case, but without going into all of them, the police officer found drops of blood on the locked door and had an objective reason to believe that someone may be injured because Matalonis’s brother had told the police that he was beaten by four people outside a bar. The police followed the blood trail to Matalonis’s home where he consented to a search. Matalonis lied to the police when he stated that he lived alone. The police officer’s suspicion of Matalonis grew because he appeared nervous when they asked him about the locked room. The officer believed this might be because someone was injured in that room, so the officer located the key to the room and searched it.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be reasonable. Using a reasonable standard, exigent circumstances allow police officers to conduct searches when police are in hot pursuit of a suspect or to render emergency aid. The caretaker provision of Wisconsin law falls under the emergency aid exception the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld. Should this case be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is likely that this ruling will be upheld.

Here is a copy of the bill of rights. Please show me where it says that cops can force their way in without a warrant, and also show me where it says the state supreme court can over rule the bill of rights.

Von Arney

We don’t care about jurisprudence or case law.

We care about ORIGINAL INTENT.

Justin Price

Um, the 3 dissenting justices themselves said the decision “swallows the 4th amendment.” And the issue is the EXPANSION of the “exception” you mention, called “community caretaker”, not the exception itself.

Shane Freund

You should go take a shit. It’s backing up out of your mouth.

jj

So classy

Greg

So, by the sounds of your expertise in your response, Heidi is correct.

WTF, Constitution is twisting in the wind, how can 7 learned Judges, can be this FUCKING DUMB.
Are we the United States of America or 49 states and Wisconsin.
Just plain FUCKING FUCKTARDS, how the FUCKTARDS wake up in the morning and try to rewrite a SACRED DOCUMENT of the USA.
MIND FUCK FUCKTARDS !!!!!

Wisconsin State Supreme Court, or the STATE OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ? Which one is it ? The corporate one that is ASSUMING authority to RULE on STATUTES, ACTS, and CODES of the corporation and thus allowing the corporation to enforce those RULES on the PRESUMED CITIZENS SUBJECT to a PRESUMED LEGAL FICTION to abide by those corporate CODES, or the one which is supposed to be Constitutionally Lawful and abides by the Constitution.

Let it be known, If you come into my house without me, asking you , YOU WILL DIE! I DO NOT Care what kind of Suit You are wearring.The COTUS,Supper seeds any state law, Passed by a ——– Well , you get the idea.

“By the people” means the people chose and the government enforces. Government is taking it upon themselves to create socialistic rules. People… think about your vote.

Rawleye

According to the article it was 4 votes not a single vote that changed the decision. Despite whether it was the right decision or not, I don’t understand the uproar about the judge not being there. If she listened to the arguments and read written documents of what was said (I assume they record “minutes”). Why wouldn’t that be sufficient?

The tyrant states of America. It is the fault of the Unconscious, cowardly American peasant. American is a hopeless, lost cause because these peasants are unconscious animals, human cattle that have been herded up by their evil masters ( all government that currently infests America)! Americans are breathtakingly stupid peasants!

nope,never once,don’t need them!in fact the last time one was out to our clubhouse he was drunk and waving his gun around like a prince,we shut him down and threw him into his truck!i can tell you about the time i had to go toe to toe with a few,or the time i got the best of one trying to kiddnap my daughter,we can go there!,i never call the cops!i take care of my own shit!and when or if i get the worst,it’s just go home lick your wounds and come back out for another day,no cops!!and i never say thanks to a thief or rapists!!why…would you?sick f’kn world we live in eh?

Corey Felsman

That’s the problem. People these days they’re too scared to even call the police when they need them. My 9 year old sister even knows this a kid in class was bullying her and my mom says to her “well do you want me to call the cops” and she says “no way I want her to be nice not beaten to death”.

no longer need warrants ? time to start shooting the fucking clowns then . btw…. someone should name all who signed this bill and there start a mass tort lawsuit against them . nothing should ever trump your con

I am seeking Private Individuals to Unite to create our own Private Membership Association so we will not be defined under the U.C.C. As ” INTERFERING IN COMMERCE” so we the people can and will make a difference for ALL MEMBERS IN MULTIPLE WAYS using the CORRECT STRUCTURES both NATIONALLY and INTERNATIONALLY!!! Feel free to email me if interested in GOING AROUND THE PUBLIC IN A Private Way instead of getting constantly upset at always going through THE PUBLIC MARTIAL LAW JURISDICTIONS!!!
EMAIL: [email protected]

The author of this article needs to go back to clown college or wherever he learned about the law. This is clearly a case in which the 4th amendment exception applies. Plain view and exigent circumstances (the blood.)

Rob Olson

When did cops learn to see through walls. People like you are the reason cops and politicians keep steps all over our rights. Stop giving them authorities they don’t and can’t have.

Dan Wood

Uh, in this case the guy let them into his house and they saw blood and cannabis… that’s grounds for a warrant, and to check the house for any more injured parties. I have 16 years in Law Enforcement and The author of this article is playing word games, and is a moron.

Rob Olson

You say they need a warrant, then change your tune and say they don’t need a warrant. You just proved what people say “that cops do have the lowest iq of any profession”.

Dan Wood

You don’t understand written English apparently; they COULD have gotten a warrant BASED ON THE PLAIN VIEW EVIDENCE, but since there was a violent fight they were ok to search the house for other injured people WITHOUT A WARRANT because of the blood they saw when they were INVITED into the house. Go read some caselaw before you try to argue about things that you know nothing about. By resorting to petty insults about your perception of law enforcement officers intelligence as a whole, you’re just proving that you’re an “Internet lawyer” since we’re using quotation marks to look cool now.

Rob Olson

I do read English. It is called the constitution. Not some law that allows you criminals with badge to think you can violate it.

Rob Olson

and the quotes aren’t there to be “cool”. They are other because that is what one does when they quote someone.

Jason Harrison

Yes, and what is referred to as “probable cause”

Ffi

“Recognizing exemptions to great principles always creates the hazard, of course, that the exemptions will devour the rule ”
Justice William Brennan

Yankees and liberals let stuff like that happen. Walk into a Texas home with no warrant and see what happens to you. Gun fights are a Texas tradition. My dad’s a sheriff’s deputy and he has told me if anybody (cop, military or otherwise) comes in his house to take anything without a warrant, they will not walk out and I stand by that 100%.

There has been no change in your own home !! They must have a warrant to search!!

Tony

I have really had it. People running to be our president, just barely smart enough to wipe there red asses. I propose a NEW MODERN CONSTITUTION. I human one vote, no longer 100,000,000.00 per vote. Something is all fucked up. Am I the only person that awake….its like a monty python bad dream

Dennis Rogge

Yeah, so they can enter without a warrant, under the pretense of investigating another ” so called crime” and then bust you out for something as harmless as pot

They better stock up on body bags I will shoot the first motherfucker through my door

Daniel J Rondello

Why do Republicans seem to think The United States is a confederacy? It’s not. Federal laws have sovreignity of state laws.

Mark Wells

You have only one chance to refuse a search. Once they are inside your car, home, or have their whole hand shoved up your ass, it’s too late.

Dago

Bullshit hit piece.

lordwoodsman

NO, stop lying. The 4th Amendment is doing just fine. 1) New justice wasn’t on the Supreme Court when the arguments were made, but she is there fulfilling her legal role and did listen to the recordings and heard the other judges positions before voting. 2) Cops can’t just walk into your house without a warrant. But there have always been necessary exceptions to allow them in without one. If you shoot someone and then run into your house or mine, they can follow you in and arrest you. If you INVITE them in (which is the 1st part of what happened here), they can come in. If they see you hitting someone through your big front window or see illegal drugs sitting on your table after inviting you in, that’s called “Plain Sight” and they can enter/use that evidence. That’s the 2nd part of what happened here. If they have reason to believe evidence is about to be destroyed or that someone may be in danger inside, they can enter. And that’s the 3rd part of what happened here. He beat up his brother, they came to talk to him about it and he invited them in. They saw Pot and blood in the apartment and saw a locked door. As he had just beaten someone down the street and they saw blood in the apartment, they were understandable concerned that someone else was hurt in the apartment and may be behind the locked door. I don’t like things that Walker is doing these days either, but lets not take the police and the court doing their job and try to turn it into one more attack against the Gov. If you don’t provide evidence to make Police suspect you are harming someone or leave illegal things in plain sight for them and the community to see, they still can’t come barging into your home.

James Worzalla

I just would like to alter that last statement: the Police can indeed barge into your home under certain circumstance as in the case in State vs Pinkard 2010 WI 81, in which officers received a tip that there were people in a residence that were unconscious within the vicinity of Cocaine. The officers entered the residence to check on the welfare of the occupants, using a concern for possible overdose as a means to enter without warrant.

Bottom line, they can enter your home without warrant and seize evidence as long as they can prove their actions were lawful and just.

James Worzalla

unfortunately, under the “community caretaker” exception, an officer can enter search every room in a house if they believe that there is a person in danger. in this case, the officers could have entered the house even without consent or a warrant with reasonable belief that someone inside is seriously injured. Then, conduct a sweep to secure that no one else in the residence was injured or otherwise in danger. This thus extends the plain view doctrine which allows an officer to seize,without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. this in not a new practice and this article is worse than a Fox News report…

alexander

So much for the Republican love of the Constitution !!!

Double D

i think it falls under #2 in this case. he gave consent. but they can only search what is in site of there eyes when given permission to enter with out a warrant. and since they found a violation “the Pot” that gave them the right to search without a warrant. also the fact there was cause to believe that there could be another Victim in the home also gave them the right.

Wisconsin state statue.

23.61 Search and seizure; when authorized. A search of a person, object or place may be made and things may be seized when the search is made:

(1) Incident to a lawful arrest;
(2) With consent;
(3) Pursuant to a valid search warrant;
(4) With the authority and within the scope of a right of lawful inspection;
(5) Incident to the issuance of a lawfully issued citation under s. 23.60;
(6) During an authorized temporary questioning under s. 23.59; or
(7) As otherwise authorized by law.

Well I think that now,,,law enforcement are considered ”Community Caretakers,, if I’m out of milk and bread,,for my personal well being,, they should run to the store for me if I’m ill.. See how that plays out !!!

Corey Felsman

That was my first thought.

Corey Felsman

So, maybe this wasn’t the best example to use for this article since it seems like it’s not such ac cut and dry case I mean it does seem like there was probable cause.

The wording used when a person is read the Miranda Warning, also
known as being ‘Mirandized,’ is clear and direct:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you
cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the
rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak
to me?”

Question: I was not read my Miranda Rights. Will my case be dismissed?

Answer: Not likely, but possible. It depends on the case, what the issue is and what was
garnered after the questioning started. A DUI case, as we may have mentioned in
some earlier discussions, Miranda is generally not quite as important because
there’s not a lot of evidence taken after the person is put into custody. A
murder case, if a person’s in custody and they did not read the Miranda and
then during the interrogation [provide] evidence that proves the murder, that
might be a case where the case could be dismissed; or, what would happen would
be the evidence would be excluded, and then without evidence then the case would
have to be dismissed.

Gene

Pretty sure the Miranda rights are a TV myth, been arrested 3x’s by different cities and states, never once read my rights. They laughed the first time I asked. Will feign ignorance, but I’m pretty sure it’s not practiced.

Chris Holcomb

the fact that you believe miranda rights to be a tv myth is a horrid reflection on the current state of affairs, the miranda doctrine does exsist and so does the “Terry frisk” dont let bully cops who never even studyied the laws dictate to you…. this is the reason we have councel and attorneys, because the people enforcing the law rarely study it

Anonymous

That’s why when you know the law, so often they call you a “jailhouse lawyer” or ask you “are you a lawyer?” like “if we don’t know the law we are sworn to uphold, how do you know it if you aren’t a lawyer?”

Kian O’Floinn

It has happened to me twice

Chris Street

You don’t have to give Miranda warning unless you are asking or are going to ask incriminating questions.

★$gт★$ℓ๑ттεя★

It’s no longer required that they read you your rights. Been that way for years

Everybody has the right to remain silent. Unfortunately, almost nobody has the ABILITY. And, everything you say (that is harmful to you) will be used against you and everything you say (that may be helpful to you) will be excluded as “hearsay” unless you waive your right to remain silent and testify, subjecting yourself to cross-examination…
You have the right to remain silent when you wake up in the morning and when you go to bed at night. If a cop tells you about your right to remain silent… It is probably too late.

Floki

What do you expect from a state where they can now take your dna just for being arrested. Not charged with a crime, just arrested.

Anonymous

Or if you are a commercial driver and involved in an accident, regardless of fault, even if you could not have done anything to prevent it…you STILL have to get drug tested

Kian O’Floinn

I’m a GOM diver. Yes you are correct.

Anonymous

Yep. The law says anyone who is covered by the Hours of Service law must submit to a random drug test, also anytime they are involved in an accident, regardless of fault. Not sure if the law covers student, sprort or private pilot, although it does cover commercial and atp.

I wonder who these a-holes are that have infiltrated our courts? It’s as if some foreign enemy has planted judges around the country to deliberately create these unconstitutional rulings.

69troyjan

They’re called zionist Jews, they make up most of Congress too !

VARAKIENEN

Haz nothing to Do with race and religion. They screw their Own over too. so, its just greedy power hungry ass wipes, from every and all corners of the globe. lets not muddy it by bringing prejudice into it.

Kian O’Floinn

There us only one Friggen race. Black isn’t a race, white isn’t a race, on and on. And haz is spelled has.

ebm120

Tell that to a doctor. Tell him to treat the white, black, and asian (for lack of a better term) person exactly the same. You will be laughed out of his office.

Kian O’Floinn

You are quite the simpleton. Thank you for the laugh.

ebm120

I guess those Doctors are all simpleton too.

Kian O’Floinn

Again it isn’t a race . Did you not pay attention in science class? We have the human race and then differing species of animals and insects.

Simple simpleton.

Jon Steele

Shove your pc “human race” shit back up your ass, you sanctimonious oaf. Same as there are different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, etc. same as their are different breeds (races) of human beings. PERIOD. The mainstream science books that you were indoctrinated with were written by Cultural Marxists who promote the bogus theories of Franz Boas (who was a Jew by the way), you fucking ignorant clown.

Kian O’Floinn

Hey idiot mother fuvker.
Dogs and cats are two different species of animals with differing breeds dumbass cock dmoker.
Humans are classified as one race with different breeds and cultures you fucking retarded baboon.

You like how I voided the P.C. diologe corky. You are a shining example of what a liberal really is.

Jon Steele

The “simpletons” are those that believe in the myth “racial equality.”

John Carter

They’re called racist idiots. That would be you injecting your twisted little panty problems into the debate.

Jon Steele

WRONG again. The “idiots” are the anti-racists.

Not pro Israel

Fischer was very outspoken in his condemnation of the Zionist conspirators controlling America. Like Ezra Pound, Fischer also became an ‘ex-pat’, relocating to Japan.

“My main interest right now is to expose the Jews. This is a lot bigger than me. They’re not just persecuting me. This is not just my struggle, I’m not just doing this for myself… This is life and death for the world. These God-damn Jews have to be stopped. They’re a menace to the whole world.”

– Quote by Bobby Fischer
“We are in the hands of the Jews. They can do what they please with our values.”

Adams advised against investment except in the form of gold locked in a safe deposit box:

“There you have no risk but the burglar. In any other form you have the burglar, the Jew, the Czar, the socialist, and, above all, the total irremediable, radical rottenness of our whole social, industrial, financial and political system.”

– Quotes by Henry Adams

“You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-jewed the Jew”

“And the big Jew has rotted every nation he has wormed into.”

“Your infamy is bound up with Judaea. You can not touch a sore or a shame in your empire but you find a Mond, a Sassoon, or a Goldsmid.”

– Quotes by Ezra Pound

“And if after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you speedily hear of “scandals” and “investigations” and “impeachments” for the removal of the disobedient.”

“I know who caused the war (World War I) – the Jewish bankers! I have the evidence here. Facts!”

– Quotes by Henry Ford

behindthecamera

You really are a special breed of asshole, aren’t you?

Not pro Israel

Israel sux.

Jon Steele

“Special breed of asshole” is your specialty, you pro-Israel blockhead.

behindthecamera

Have a Snickers, Jon Steele. You’re not yourself when you’re a raging jerk. Oh, wait…

Kian O’Floinn

Liberal communist degenerates.

Tan Danglesworth

Reading is fundemental..”Bradley was appointed by Governor Scott Walker”. This is why contards should be euthanized or neutered at least.

Kian O’Floinn

Contards? Really? That’s a new one lol. Friggen hippy.

Tan Danglesworth

I guess you would prefer rushPUBIKkklan. limbaugh is your prophet, you want govt. control over gays and abortion, and the klan is what you identify with. Friggin fascist.

Kian O’Floinn

Lol. Awwwe snowflake don’t get all BUTT hurt now that Trump is going to be your new daddy.
Gays? Hmmm I’m disgusted with the hypocritical platform homo’s have adopted and regular discuss it with my Butch daughter.
Klan? I do not recognize that enity of the Democratic south. I’m willing to bet you know nothing of the Klan.
Tory Judges?
At times they are an asset.

As for me I am pretty much a libertarian and far from a facist.

Tan Danglesworth

Libertarian? You mean pot smoking republican. Funny, explain to me how libertarian ideals mesh with a fascist like trump. As for the klan, I’m southern and know exactly what those scared little band of white boys is about. Trump won’t be my new daddy, I’m not too poor to relocate.

Kian O’Floinn

Hahaha pot smoking republican. You made my day with that one lol. See we do agree somewhat.
Myself being a small business operator I welcome Trump as my new daddy, and also being a vet I believe he will do the right thing.
I also have that bug out plan instilled. I’ll give it a year,, See where we are at a make a judgement call after that.
Central America maybe my new home.

I’m confused by your positions, Kian…? You start off with the mindless slam of “liberals” in response to an article pointing out how the so-called “conservatives” have put yet another “conservative” judge on the bench, who continues with the anti-constitutional dismemberment of the protections FROM the government afforded to the people in the Bill of Rights…
People lose, government wins.
If being offended by that makes me a “hippy” than your being comfortable with it makes you a Loyalist no better than the American colonists who remained loyal to the British Crown during the American Revolutionary War.
Patriots called them “persons inimical to the liberties of America”. Just like you and this over-reaching, “conservative” Tory judge.

Kian O’Floinn

Where is the mindless slam libtard?

james crawford

it’s called the GOP.

Jon Steele

WRONG. It’s called Democrats.

Tan Danglesworth

Wonder no more! The story clearly states “Bradley was appointed by Governor Scott Walker”. Yet another example of conservative ideological bs . Local and state elections matter, people.

Pat Enery

There are two groups of a-holes. The first group were lawyers who got Lincoln to make a new 13th amendment under martial law & without the rebel states whose governments were, prior to the Civil War, properly elected. The original 13th Amendment was never repealed. The second group is more sinister. Financed by the Rothschild banking dynasty, this group infiltrated our government during the 1912 election by blackmail. They got a Supreme Court appointment of one of their own followed by the sneaking in of the Federal Reserve. The 16th & 17th amendments came shortly thereafter. Money depleting war & the financial collapse of Germany soon followed. This history is necessary to understand so as to reconcile what is happening today.

Gary Spears

Anyone entering into a private residence unlawfully should be met with deadly force.

Mike Townsend

Amen.

james crawford

that has happened before. The cops killed the guy, who was a retired detective and then they found out they did a “no knock” on the wrong house. Nothing happened. Oops, sorry.

agb1953

SCOTUS will reverse this stupidity. In the past, courts have decided slavery and segregation were legal.

Kian O’Floinn

You do know Negros want separatism back? Slavery should be brought back.

Jeff Hyams

What do you call an attorney with an IQ of 50?

Your honor.

John Seychel

This shit is written into the constitution. The first lawsuit this law will be denounced.

Paul Klinger

Freedom. Republican style.

Jon Steele

More like cuckservative style.

Kian O’Floinn

Does it hurt your head to be that gay?

David Roach

No
this ruling doesnt allow warrant-less searches people stop applying
your belief to a ruling like this your only hurting our cause by putting
false info out like this you make a cop believe he can do it they had
probable cause because he admitted to a physical fight with the man who
was beaten he gave them reason to believe he may have done the beating

james crawford

Apparently you don’t understand in the least the implications of this ruling. Nor are you familiar with the concept of the “slippery slope”. At one time, it was illegal to search a person’s automobile without a warning. Then the law was changed so that police could search “if they felt there was a possibility of a weapon” for their own safety. Everybody wanted our officers to be safe, so it was passed. Now they can search every part of an automobile, identify and search all passengers and take the damn car completely apart to search if they want to. Police have even been known to perform roadside full body cavity searches without a warrant or cause.

So, don’t be so smarmy in your assumption, because you are wrong, dead wrong.

THAT IS TRULY AN INSANE IDEA!!! This Is Just THE 1%ers Trying to STRIKE OUT AGAINST ANY TYPE OF DECRIMINALIZATION! THE LIE IS OVER!!! NOW ONCE THE PEOPLE ALL SEE ALL OF THE BENEFITS THAT MARIJUANA HAS TO OFFER IN MEDICINALLY PRESCRIBED FOR AILMENTS THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES HAVE MADE AND HOPED TO CONTINUE TO MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS MONTHLY FOR WILL NOW BE LOST TO THEM1 WHICH IS THE TRUE REASON IT WAS CRIMINALIZED IN THE FIRST PLACE! PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES PAY FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS CAMPAIGNS SO THAT THIS TYPE OF LOSS COULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. HOWEVER THE PEOPLE ARE DONE ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIORS IN GOVERNMENT “FINALLY THE TRUTH IS OUT NOW” AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS NEW OUTSIDE THE BOX THINKING AND BEHAVING GOVERNMENT WILL INDEED RE-INSTATE THE PEOPLES TRUST IN OUR GOVERNMENTS IN THE USA & CANADA AT LEAST TO BE SURE. IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT OR ANYTHING I’M TOTALLY AWARE OF THIS FACT. HOWEVER IT’S GOOD TO KNOW THAT MY CHILDREN & THEIRS MAY JUST SEE OUR GOVERNMENTS CLEAN UP THEIR ACTS AND TRULY GOVERN FOR THE PEOPLE! JUST IMAGINE!!!

They were allowed in by the resident, anything they had in their view was open for evaluation. Officers obviously saw all the weed as “reasonable cause” to search the house. That caretaker stuff doesn’t make any sense though, when “reasonable cause” is right there, it seems like double talk.

John Redman

Any violation of any Right which has been previously determined to be Inalienable will be defended with Extreme Prejudice. Is there a problem with the corporate Oligarchy coming to terms with the words; Inalienable, Unalienable? These come from Self-Determination, not documents drafted by sociopaths with machinations to Rule. I demand to see Evidence of Legitimacy of Authority. Who has the Special Privilege to issue Rights? Who has this Power to take Inalienable Natural Rights through use of force or through scheming in private? Who are these dim beings who take up arms against their communities believing themselves to have Legitimate Authority? There exists NO Legitimacy to ANY Authority…there exists demands on paper and those ignorant enough to enforce such edicts. Sic Semper Tyrannis. Show me Evidence or be prepared to be dealt with.

computerjockey

That will never be upheld by the Supreme Court…

Jon Jones

the court is correct, so were the cops. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

If the court were correct, the entry without a warrant along with the extended stay, would make the MJ growing equipment the fruit of the poisonous tree. Sadly, the doctrine has been whittled away by the U.S. Supremes… Here, they avoided the issue by parking the invasion of a private area under the “community caretaker” exception. Application of intellectual horsepower to do harm to the pretty straightforward protections envisioned by our founders.

Epeefencer

I’m sure this will go to the US Supreme court. Talk about a state over stepping their authority.

Ron Arnold

Texas , cops no knocked on a drug dealers house or suspected of and were shot dead , no charges filed . you come into someone home expected to leave that home in a body bag thats anyone not just law.

Joe Kulik

1) This ruling Does NOT negate the whole 4th Amendment, only cases where cops have reason to believe that someone’s welfare might be in danger. Cops Have ALWAYS Been able to conduct a warrantless search, for instance, if they hear someone calling for help from inside a locked house. 2) This ruling does not seem to be a wide reaching precedent, & applies chiefly to the case in question. 3) I have sincere doubts if this ruling will be validated by the U.S. Supreme Court, even with the most Conservative roster of Justices. If the U.S. Supreme Court does validate it, it will be a VERY Restricted ruling, apllicable only in limited cases…4) The BIGGEST Mistake that this defendant made was even letting the cops into his home without a warrant. I Would NEVER Do That.
… [email protected]

Enoxh

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a blight on America. This will be overturned. These people should all be fired. They have no business interpreting the Constitution.

Steven Elizabeth

My name is Steven Elizabeth from Scotland want to testify about a great spell caster that help me cast a spell that bring my husband back to me without any delay. I broke up with him with just little misunderstanding hoping we will get back shortly,but things was growing worse until i contacted Dr.Manbela who help me with his historical powers to bring him back, i have never believed in a spell caster until i come across him, it will be of great sin if i should go out from here without dropping the contact of this great spell caster, in case you need the help of this great spell caster you can contact him through his email: once you contact him all your problems will be over ,once again i say very big thanks to you sir for helping me to recover my husband back, and please sir keep your good work because people need your help and in their lives ,once more thank you Dr Manbela

All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided on TheFreeThoughtProject.com is for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. Any views expressed here-in are not necessarily those held by TheFreeThoughtProject.com